'Remission Schemes Motivate Prisoners To Maintain Good Behaviour': Patna High Court Orders Reconsideration Of Life Convicts' Plea
The Patna High Court has held that remission schemes serve an important reformative purpose and act as a healthy motivation for prisoners to maintain good behaviour. It accordingly directed the Bihar State Sentence Remission Review Board to reconsider the remission applications of two convicts who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for abducting children for extortion.Justice Jitendra...
The Patna High Court has held that remission schemes serve an important reformative purpose and act as a healthy motivation for prisoners to maintain good behaviour. It accordingly directed the Bihar State Sentence Remission Review Board to reconsider the remission applications of two convicts who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for abducting children for extortion.
Justice Jitendra Kumar was hearing a writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 05.03.2020 passed by the State Sentence Remission Board, Bihar, rejecting the petitioners' plea for remission.
The case concerned petitioners Md. Sultan and Tabassum Arra, who were convicted by the Fast Track Court-I, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 304 of 2003 arising out of Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No. 162 of 2002. Md. Sultan was convicted under Section 364A read with Section 149 IPC and Section 120B IPC, while Tabassum Arra was convicted under Section 368 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 120B IPC. By order dated 13.09.2005, both were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. Their conviction and sentence were later upheld by the High Court in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 709 of 2005 by judgment dated 14.09.2011.
The petitioners submitted that they had been in custody since 22.10.2002 and had undergone more than 23 years of imprisonment. Their remission plea had been placed before the State Sentence Remission Board but was rejected by resolution dated 05.03.2020. While the Jail Superintendent had recommended remission in view of the petitioners' reformed conduct, the Superintendent of Police, the Probation Officer, and the Trial Court had opposed the grant of remission citing the heinous nature of the offence.
The petitioners argued that the Board's decision was arbitrary. They submitted that the Jail Superintendent was the authority best placed to assess reformative changes in a prisoner's conduct, whereas other authorities such as the police, probation officer and trial court had no occasion to observe the petitioners' conduct during their incarceration. It was further pointed out that the petitioners had spent over two decades in prison and were aged about 75 and 70 years respectively.
The State defended the decision of the Remission Board, contending that the offences committed by the petitioners were extremely serious. It was submitted that the convicts had abducted four young children for extortion and had kept them confined in a tunnel for over five months. In view of the gravity of the offence, the State argued that the petitioners were not entitled to remission and that their conduct was comparable to offences such as rape, dacoity and terrorist activities where remission is prohibited under the rules.
The High Court examined the statutory framework governing remission. It noted that Section 432 CrPC empowers the appropriate government to suspend or remit sentences, while Section 433A imposes restrictions by mandating that a convict sentenced to life imprisonment for offences punishable with death must serve at least fourteen years before being considered for release.
The Court further referred to the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012 framed under Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894. Chapter XIII of the Manual deals with remission, Chapter XIV concerns the release of prisoners, and Part B of Chapter XV addresses premature release. Rule 474 provides for premature release of life convicts and empowers the Bihar State Sentence Remission Review Board to review remission and recommend premature release in appropriate cases.
Referring to Rule 478 of the Manual, the Court noted that the paramount consideration before the Board is the welfare of society at large. The Board is required to consider several factors including the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the possibility of the prisoner committing similar offences again, the socio-economic condition of the convict's family, prospects of reconciliation with victims, and the chances of rehabilitating the convict as a useful member of society.
The Court also reiterated the settled principle that ordinarily the remission policy prevailing at the time of conviction applies. However, if a more liberal remission policy is in force at the time when the case is considered, the benefit of such liberal policy should be extended to the convict. Examining the decision of the Remission Board, the Court noted that while the Jail Superintendent had recommended remission based on the petitioners' reformed conduct, the other authorities had opposed remission largely on the ground of the seriousness of the offence.
The Court observed that the report of the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court merely reiterated the circumstances of the offence and conviction, without addressing the relevant factors required to be examined by the Remission Board while considering remission applications. The Court noted that as per the judicial precedents, the following factors are required to be considered by the Board for recommending remission for the prisoners:
(i) Whether the offence is an individual act of crime without affecting the society at large.
(ii) Whether there is any chance of future recurrence of committing crime.
(iii) Whether the convict has lost his potentiality in committing crime.
(iv) Whether there is any fruitful purpose of confining this convict any more.
(v) Socio-economic condition of the convict's family.”
The Court further held:
“From perusal of the resolution of the State Sentence Remission Board, it transpires that the Board is oblivious of the fact that grant of remission to the prisoner is a facet of reformatory aspect of our criminal justice system and the prisons are correctional and reformatory centres for adults convicts, as there are Observation Homes for juveniles in conflict with law. Remission is premature release of the convicts prior to completion of their term or life sentence if there is positive change in the conduct and attitude of the prisoners. The idea behind such release is to allow reformed prisoners to join mainstream of the society as a productive member. Remission schemes offer healthy motivation for better behaviour, inner improvement and development of social fibres.”
Addressing the Board's reliance on Clause (iv)(k) of Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 issued by the Home Department, Government of Bihar (which provides that prisoners convicted of offences such as rape, dacoity or terrorist crimes are not eligible for premature release) the Court held that the issue had already been considered in earlier judgments. It noted that after the coming into force of the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012, the categorisation of prisoners for the purpose of remission is governed by Rule 481. The Court further observed that the said notification was not implemented prior to 25.09.2007, as noted in Ajit Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar (2023 SCC OnLine Pat 4285).
The Court also took note of the advanced age of the petitioners and the fact that they had already spent more than two decades in custody. It observed that the reports placed before the Board did not disclose any cogent material suggesting the likelihood of the petitioners committing similar offences in the future. In view of their reformed conduct and advancing age, the Court observed that the petitioners had already lost the potentiality to commit crimes and that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping them confined any further.
The Court emphasised that imprisonment is not intended as a measure of revenge against convicts but as a means of correction and reformation. It observed that prisons are meant to function as centres for reformative and rehabilitative measures rather than instruments of retribution.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the resolution dated 05.03.2020 passed by the State Sentence Remission Board, Bihar, and directed the Board to reconsider the petitioners' applications for remission and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law by 15 May 2026.
Case Title: Md. Sultan and Anr v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 924 of 2021
Appearance: Mr. Vishal Vikram Rana, Ms. Misha Bharti, Mr. Utkarsh Vikram Rana, Mr. Akash Priye, and Mr. Saurav Dev appeared for the Petitioners. Mr. Manish Kumar and Mr. Deepak Kumar appeared for the Respondent.